I'm not sure why I'm responding to this meaningless babble. It's not really worth my time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Common Soldier
If nobody is neutral, then why are you criticizing those who point out the fact? Why are you criticizing those complain of the bias of critics? It is a question to ask is why do critics all apparently have similar biases. Why are the critics biases so different from that apparently of the general audience?
My issue isn't with the political bias of Cookiegod or any particular poster. My issue is with the post and the arguments it promotes. Why critics are different is an interesting question, but that isn't really the question being asked here. It's obvious to anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty, that the first few pages was simply critic bashing for the sake of levying yet another complaint against the "Left". Describing the arguments levied in this thread as an identification of "facts" is a little much. I had a good laugh at that one.
Quote:
The movie Citizen Kane criticizes one man, I don't see anywhere it criticizes the entire industry as a whole. I beginning to wonder if you have actually this and many of the other films you are mentioning. Exactly where in Citizen Kane is the entire media criticized, and not just the exploits of one man?
The movie Citizen Kane shows how a single man can significantly influence news coverage to suit his own agenda. This is an obvious criticism of media. If it's not obvious to you, or if you do not see how such an argument can be made, then don't bother replying. I have no interest in discussing a film with somebody who rejects an interpretation because they are unable to understand it.
Quote:
And saying that criticism of the media has existed for a long time proves there is no real problem is like saying that people have been abusing opiates like heroin and prescription drugs for a long time, so there is no real Opiate Crisis today, it is just a myth made up by people who are into holistic medicine. The fact that criticism has been around doesn't mean that the media hasn't gotten worse,, or that the criticisms are not justified. It is a cop-out, since you are avoiding the issue as to whether the criticisms are justified - saying there were criticisms in the past does not address the issue.
Criticism of the media is not proof of journalistic decline. Especially when similar criticism and otherwise, has existed for decades before today. Pointing out how your argument is weak, is not a cop-out. It's just something you don't want to address.
Quote:
Fox News is about the lone major news agency, and it is heavily criticized and dismissed by the left. PBS used to have conservative talk show host like Buckley, but no longer does.
What does the lack of a conservative talk show on PBS have to do with an o overall decline in journalism? There are literally hundreds of shows that do the same thing as Buckley. Though I have to say, if Hannity wants to add any kind of gravitas to his podcast, he's going to have to start making arguments that make some sense.
Quote:
You watch CNN, you don't read it. CNN is not a publishing agency. And no, I listen to NPR everyday with the BBC for one.
First of all, I don't understand the quip about CNN. They have a website that you can read off of. In fact, I'd recommend reading over watching unless absolutely necessary. It's faster. Second, I don't believe you.
Quote:
If Martin didn't want to get shot, he should not have attacked Zimmerman. He should have just walked home.
Alternatively, Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him.
Quote:
And where is the real evidence any of this happened? Do you have copies of the Reddit post?
This is a well publicized story. I’m not going to do the work for you, especially when It takes far less effort to google it and read it, than it does to post all the relevant information in text. Do your own work.
Quote:
In any case, it still isn't as bad as happened to Zimmerman, when even the President got into the act. Did Sunil lose his job,, be put on trial?
Sunil is dead.
Quote:
And so the mainstream media needs to be held to a higher standard, since they are professionals. They were no better than the social media groups you complained about.
They're already held to a higher standard, and they redact or correct stories that they get wrong. Especially the high profile ones. So I have no idea what you're complaining about. There is a high level of quality at large media publications.
Quote:
Your comments reflect your own bias. Sure, to someone to the left of Ortega as you seem to be, Warren would look like a conservative. The fact that you can make such a claim I think reflects more on you than the facts.
Huh? Alright then bud. Why don't you tell me my "bias"? What are my political positions? Shouldn't be hard, seeing as how I, like many others, make them public.
Quote:
If Martin had kept on walking, he would be alive.
Alternatively, if Zimmerman didn't follow him with a gun, Martin would be alive.
Quote:
Then you are a fool, and still would be wrong. How do you know someone wants to kill you? Are you a mind reader? What if rhe person is following you because he was adopted, and thinks you were a long lost sibling and is working up his courage to approach you and ask some questions? Or maybe he is following you because his client is thinking yournare cheating with his wife. If you wonder why there is so much violence in the US, look at yourself in the mirror.
And what you propose would be really, really, foolish. Even if he was planning on killing you, what if the man was armed, attacking him would give him a chance to shoot you at a close, can't miss, range. And what if he was not intent on killing you, but was armed? He likely shoot you in self defense , causi the very thing you were trying to prevent. In all cases, what you propose would be the wrong course of action, and liky to get yourself killed, and it would be all your own fault.
I would have a gun and I'd simply make him drop his. Seeing as how Zimmerman is an idiot, he'd probably try to draw at me, at which point I'd drop him.
Quote:
Martin did break the law, he assaulted Simmerman, that is why Martin is dead. The law doesn't say you can assault someone for following you.
Impossible to determine, seeing as how Martin is dead and Zimmerman is alive. Self-defense is a valid claim, especially when some dumbass is following you armed with a gun.
Quote:
Doesn't matter why Zimmerman was following Martin, what Zimmerman did was not against the law. Even if he was not on formal patrol, he was in his right to walk up and ask a strange man what he was doing in the neighborhood. Martin was not in hisnright to beat up on Zimmerman simply because he didn't like Zimmerman following him. And if Martin was scoping out houses to break in later that is highly relevant, since it makes Zimmerman right to follow him.
If Martin didn't want to get shot. He shouldn't start beating up on Zimmerman as he did. He should have walked home, and then complained to the police. Contrary to what you think, you don't have the right to beat up on someone simply because you don't like them. If you are afraid for your life, you run away, knock on a neighbor's door, you don't start beating up on some one, because they might be armed and you could shot. Even if they didn't intend anything bad fornyou, you could still get shot. Which is what happened to Martin, which makes the shooting Marin's own fault due to his poor judgment.
No, actually it does matter. As noted by the judge, the jury, the police records that show the call. The fact that Martin took a less optimal decision, doesn't make the situation his fault. Afterall, if Zimmerman simply stayed home, nobody would've been shot.
Quote:
Highly relevant. Since Martin is the one who started the fight. Following someone is not necessarily a crime, beating up someone is.
Self-defense isn't a crime.
Quote:
One again you are wrong. The Constitution does govern criminal procedures, and rules of evidence, and can supercede local laws if they are in error. If it was a local matter, then what was Obama and his minions doing getting invovled? The rules of marriages are determine by local state law, but that did nott prevent the US Supreme Court from overturning local laws that are not regulated on national level by invoking thr Constitution.
First of all, that's not exactly what the Constitution does. Second, you're not actually refuting anything I said. Third, that Obama quip is utterly irrelevant. Just like the majority of your post that has no veered from film critique into Zimmerman, Constitutional Law, and your limited understanding of film.
Quote:
Once again you demonstrate that you haven't actually seen the film you you are talking about, and you demonstrate both your lack of knolwdge and arrogance.
You do realize that when you say, "Once again you demonstrate... your lack of knowledge and ignorance" you come off really bad? Not only are you annoying me, but quite frankly, you're veering on insulting people. Over film.
Quote:
1. Luke did not out fly Vader. Vader was all set to destroy Luke if Hans hadn't interfered. Getting yourself blown up is not proof of your superior flying ability.
He didn't blow up, and Vader clearly missed. Because you know, space magic.
Quote:
2. Luke was an experienced pilot back home, Rey had never fought with a light saber, totally different. It was specifically said in the film the X-Wings were not that much different from the crafts Luke had flown back home. I have rented out lots of different cars, and have had no problems even though I might never had driven that type of car before. Again you appear to be parroting comments by others as if by rote memory, like a person who doesn't understand Arabic memorizing Arabic Koranic passages
Rey is clearly an experienced fighter, but perhaps you missed it. Wouldn't put it past you to watch a movie inattentively. Also, I'm not sure just how cross applicable skills in flying a speeder is to flying an X-Wing. Finally, I don't even remember that being said in the movie, timestamp it for me. So no, your excuse is invalid.
Quote:
3. Luke was in the prime of life. Darth was an old middle age man who had been severely injured. His artificial limbs might not have been as good as Luke's natural ones, not as fine as a control as Luke's natural limbs. That could advers my effect Vader's flying even with the Force. No one but younsaidnDarth Vader was the best pilot in the fleet.
Actually the fact that Darth Vader is a fantastic pilot has been established over 6 movies now, as well as various media outside of the film. But even within the film, Vader displays mastery over his spacecraft and superiority over lesser pilots, shooting down several X-Wings personally.
Quote:
4. They were flying straight at top speed down a narrow corridor. Not much fancing to be done.
It's space. Also, he can pull up, just like the pilots before him. Finally, the corridor was pretty wide, especially for a single starfighter.
Quote:
5. Leia specifically said they were allowed to escape, so they could track the Falcon back to the Rebel base. No Mary Sue invovle here, and Hans and Leia were as.much responsible for the escape as Luke. It was Leia who got them out while trapped at the jail cell. It occurred to neither Luke nor Hans to escape that way, and it probably didn't occur to the Death Star planners that an escape prisoner would be armed and escape that way either. And without R2, they would have been crushed anyways. R2D2 mY look like your standard droid, but it is not, as the movie makes plain.
In the very next scene with Vader and Tarkin, they said it was a risk and that the escape wasn't planned. You don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Again, nothing Mary Sue about it. The only time Luke demonstrates anynreal force ability is using it to target thr Death Star, nothing comparable tonwhat Rey did in thd first
Huh?
Quote:
No, you the one who doesn't. Running when outnumbered does not mean you are not a Mary Sue. What makes her a Mary Sue is her repearsd ability to demonstrate Force powers and abilities equal to the best Force users with no training. She holds here own aagainst Kylo WI no training on using a light saber at all. Luke was an experience pilot, the movie said so, and his X-Wing may have been faster and more manueverable than the Tie figure used by Vader.
And it is not just the lightsaber battle. She used Jedi abilities and mind control to escape from being restrained , having no training whatever. That is being a Mary Sue..
The movie didn't say so, Rey does not display force power and abilities equal to the best users. Her use of the Force in the film was spontaneous, inexperienced, and haphazard. That's not being a Mary Sue, that's space magic being space magic.
Quote:
In the first movie, Kylo was not trying to recruit her, and she still new him. In the second movirle, she defeated the guard who would have been the most experience and best troops available, and they were most certainly trying to kill her.
Most Star Wars fans of the original intensely disliked thr idea of Midi-Chlorians as well, and think the Force Awakens and the other 2 following movies were greatly inferior to the original trilogy. However if does not conflict with anything in thr other movies. Tatoonie where Anakin was living was outside rhr Republic, and the Jedi have only aurhority within the Republic. For all we know, maybe every child in the Republic is tested.
ou are clearly defending the new trilogy because you like the agenda it pushes. I don't see Rey having any intimacy issues, I don't see Rey having any real personality at all, as a matter of fact, and which is a complaint I have made before. And yes, she is very feminist, she is typical of the new feminist who insist on showing they can be as macho any man. I don't agree with your assessment.
PS - Poe is portrayed as a dangerous irresponsible hot head, who needs the wisdom of women to contain him. The giraffe neck woman treats him as a child, refusing to answer his very reasonable request. The movie is sends rhe message "Trust Women". Feminist to me.
Kylo literally offered to teach her at 1:56:20. In the second movie Rey was already taught by Luke Skywalker before she leaves.
Please, tell me more about this mythical agenda the New Trilogy pushes. What are its goals? What does it argue? What does it say about the current world?
If you can't see Rey having an internal conflict, I'm really not sure what to tell you. Then again, you also asked me how Citizen Kane criticizes the media, so who knows how you watch movies and what you get out of it.
PS: Poe is like the most badass character in the show. I also think its hilarious that you can see how Poe needs the wisdom of women to contain him, but somehow Rey having intimacy issues is beyond you. Lul
Quote:
The Force Awakens was a lot like rebooted, but greatly inferior version of original, but the second movie went out of its way to be different from the Empire Strikes Back.
1. Instead of undergoing training by a wise and experienced Jedi, Rey is told to get lost by an embittered old man. Luke gets invovled in a climatic but pointless fight at the end of the movie, Yoda never leaves his home.
2. The Rebels successfully escape in Empire Strikes Back at the beginning of the movie, and for most of the movie the Rebel fleet is not part of the action. In the TLJ the escaping Resistance fleet makes up most of the central part of thr movie, and in the end the Resistance fleet was all but destroyed, with only a handful of people escaping, including thr totally incompetent leadership then led the Resistance to destruction. After 20+ years of fighting, thanks to Leia's incompetent leadership the Rebels/Resistance is down to just one ship , which technically wasn't even a Resistance ship at all. Way to go Leia.
3. In the Empire Strikes Back, the Emperor is alive and still very much in charge. In the TLJ the First Order Leaders is dead, and essentially the inferior Darth Vader wanabee is in charge.
So exactly how is The Last Jedi a cut and paste the link he Empire Strikes Back? Because they both have TIE Fighters and Star Destroyers?
Uh huh. I don't think you should comment on film, you don't seem to possess the ability to understand or analyze them. Here's how The Last Jedi is similar to The Empire Strikes Back.
1. Both films show Jedi training done by a grump teacher who eventually dies.
2. The Baddies, track down the remnants of the Rebel Alliance (comically both iterations are led by Leia) but fail in destroying them.
3. Both Luke and Rey face a choice and a realization about themselves.
To be fair, the New Trilogy isn't identical to the Original Trilogy, but the plot structure and the themes are. Certainly there are more and different characters, but its not exactly a radically different vision in the way the the Prequels were.
Quote:
What did I make up about the New Trilogy? Give specific examples.
That Rey is apparently a super badass that can do everything. That the movie is step one of the Feminist plot to rule the world. That the movie is lazily written. Honestly pretty much anything you write about the New Trilogy, since you haven't actually watched them very well.
Quote:
No it hasn't. I have knocked down everyone of your arguments.
Ah yes, you did school me about how the Internet came into existence around 25 years ago, and not 20 years ago as I originally stated. Other than that, you didn't do any knocking.
Quote:
No, because I have shown you are wrong lots of specific examples to show you are wrong.
Such as...?
Quote:
The Internet has roots going back before the World Wide Web, back into the 1980's, so you are not largely correct. While the Internet has become synonymous with the World is Wide Web, they are still not the same.
ARPANET was founded back in 1969, but the Internet did not functionally exist even in 1995. So no, I am largely correct and quite frankly, I was polite enough to not press the issue. If you want to discuss the exact origin of the Internet, take it up in the VV instead of trying to play of "gotcha" by engaging in intellectual pedantry.
Quote:
Already answered and refuted. You hadn't backed them.up to me before, this is the first time I am seeing them. Since earlier in this post, ai have already explained it, I will just repeat the main point - Luke didn't outfly the Darth Vader. (PS, Luke had R2-D2, which qualifies.as a computer) And using some Force ability is ok, Luke might have been able to blow up the Death Star anyways even without the Force. He seemed confident ofnhis ability when the pilots were told of their task. And Luke had some training by Obiwan in the first movie, and he had Obiwan's voice to instruct him when blowing up the Death Star, Rey had none of that. And she was using far greater and more sophisticated Force abilities than Like had even in Empire Strikes Back, despite Luke having far more training.. So no Gary Sue. But definitely Mary Sue for Rey.. Does Luke defeat Vader in a lightsaber battle despite Yod's training? No, he gets whipped by Vader, believable. But in the 3rd movie after some time has past, and Luke has been continuing his training as Yoda instructed him to do, he manages to defeat Vader. Again no Mary Sue.
Huh? All I'm seeing is a bunch of excuses for Luke's obvious Gary Stuness.
Quote:
Rey - was able to lift a lot of Boulders with no training from Luke, and not much time on her own to train herself. Mary Sue.
How does that make her a Mary Sue? She's clearly gifted.
Quote:
Rey - defeat trained guards with her lightsaber so no training. Again, a Mary Sue
Which ones? In Snoke's room? Luke already trained her.
Quote:
Rey - able to use the Jedi mind trick to escape with no training. Again a.Mary Sue.
How does that make her a Mary Stu? As noted before, she's clearly gifted, and it was spontaneous.
Quote:
Rey - able to use the Force to unlock and escape her confinment in the first movie, no training. Again, Mary Sue.
Same as above. I don't see how this makes her a Mary Sue.
Quote:
Since most of the media is leftist, most of the critics would likely be too, as I previously said. Critics are not uniformly distributed, the 9O+ % rating of TLJ proves it. If they are all voting the same way, then it is legimatd to speculate why. If there any conservative movie critics these days, I haven't seen them. But then, you think Warren and a the other Democrats are center-right. Naturally you are going to be denying you are a Social Justice Warrior. Admitting what you are putting out is propaganda makes the propaganda less effective.
Proof that most of the media is leftist?
Proof that most of the critics are leftist?
Proof that I am a Social Justice Warrior?
Proof that I think Warren is center-right?
Quote:
The information could still be available, even if Rotten Tomatoes did not exist. Just more work to find, is all.
...? And?